I thought I read somewhere that Assange has said Stone is full of shit and that they weren't communicating.Skjellyfetti wrote:CID1990 wrote:
Evidence of collusion?
Really
Do tell
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump—helped along by Aras and Emin.Papadopoulos's knowledge of Russian hacked emails before they were released.Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?
Best,
Don
Stone having a "backchannel" (his words) to Wikileaks - and "it soon will be Podesta's time in the barrel."
It's not proof. But, it's evidence.
I seeSkjellyfetti wrote:I'm not trying to change the definition. You're the one always adding "to throw the election." So, evidence must show that votes were changed because of it? Or the entire outcome of the election was altered because of it?
"Coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government."
That's how Rosenstein defines it. And I haven't changed anything.
Explain how the Don Jr emails aren't evidence of that. You conveniently ignore that.
"This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump—helped along by Aras and Emin."
"if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer"
Not following where you're getting the "to throw the election" bit.CID1990 wrote: So this whole thread isn't about evidence of an actual crime - about coordinating with Russia to throw the election .... because THAT would be a crime. Everything else is noise - for which you have no relevance filter
Ah. The Don Jr. emails are "irrelevant." Got it.CID1990 wrote:And I dont conveniently ignore anything - I dismiss it as irrelevant. You should give it a try sometime
it will save you lots of disappointment
Oh I'm fully on board with your breathless review of all the communications between the Trumpies and the Russians - I just hadn't realized we had moved away from a criminal conspiracy to affect US elections. Or are you saying that isn't what this is about? You sure seem hung up on me saying "to affect the elections", but that IS an element of a conspiracy. Otherwise, what were they conspiring to do? Learn about Chelsea's wedding details?Skjellyfetti wrote:Not following where you're getting the "to throw the election" bit.CID1990 wrote: So this whole thread isn't about evidence of an actual crime - about coordinating with Russia to throw the election .... because THAT would be a crime. Everything else is noise - for which you have no relevance filter
Is there something I'm missing that is legal unless it demonstrably affects the outcome of an election?
Seems the most applicable law to be applied to the "coordination"/"collusion" question is:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20
Then there is the catch-all "conspiracy to defaud the United States." Mueller especially seems to like this one.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371
Not seeing how it hinges on whether it "throw[s] the election" or not.
Ah. The Don Jr. emails are "irrelevant." Got it.CID1990 wrote:And I dont conveniently ignore anything - I dismiss it as irrelevant. You should give it a try sometime
it will save you lots of disappointment
Would love for you to expound on that... but, won't hold my breath.
I'm saying you're throwing out "to affect the elections" to qualify it so nothing applies to it. I'm not aware of any criminal statute that has been discussed in this that makes something illegal only if it "affects the election."CID1990 wrote: Oh I'm fully on board with your breathless review of all the communications between the Trumpies and the Russians - I just hadn't realized we had moved away from a criminal conspiracy to affect US elections. Or are you saying that isn't what this is about? You sure seem hung up on me saying "to affect the elections", but that IS an element of a conspiracy. Otherwise, what were they conspiring to do? Learn about Chelsea's wedding details?
Knowledge about the hacks before the public, and communication with the perpetrators of the hack is evidence (not proof) of violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.CID1990 wrote:The emails most certainly ARE irrelevant if they aren't evidence of criminal activity
Or are we just looking for evidence of the Trumpies communicating with Russians, and knowing about people being hacked? Because none of that is evidence of a crime - it is really that elementary
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... nge-reportSpecial counsel Robert Mueller is looking into claims made by Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone that he met with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday.
WikiLeaks released thousands of documents during the 2016 campaign that U.S. intelligence agencies believe came from Russian operatives and were aimed to hurt Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
In an email to fellow former Trump adviser Sam Nunberg dated Aug. 4, 2016, Stone claims that he “dined with Julian Assange last night,” according to the Journal.
Nunberg told The Washington Post earlier this month that investigators working for Mueller asked him to describe his conversation with Stone about meeting with Assange.
Stone has said that the email was a joke and that he never spoke with Assange.
Mueller’s team investigating Russia's election meddling has asked about the email during testimony before a grand jury, a source familiar with the matter told the Journal.
Stone said he was flying out to Los Angeles the night before he sent the email. The Journal confirmed that a flight from Miami to Los Angeles matches a screenshot of the flight information Stone provided, but could not confirm he was on it.
Stone has been inconsistent about any contact he has had with Assange and WikiLeaks. He previously stated that he communicated with Assange but told the Journal on Friday that was not the case.
The day after Stone sent the email in August 2016 in which he claimed to have dined with Assange, Stone tweeted: “Hillary lies about Russian Involvement in DNC hack -Julian Assange is a hero.”
Later in the month, he told a Republican group in Florida that he had communicated with Assange and believed more documents about Clinton would be released.
Weeks before the emails of John Podesta, chairman of Clinton's campaign, were posted online, Stone tweeted that “it will soon [be] the Podesta’s time in the barrel.”
About a month before the election, Stone again claimed that WikiLeaks had damaging material on Clinton. Two weeks later, the first of Podesta’s hacked emails were made public.
Well you are incorrect.Skjellyfetti wrote:I'm saying you're throwing out "to affect the elections" to qualify it so nothing applies to it. I'm not aware of any criminal statute that has been discussed in this that makes something illegal only if it "affects the election."CID1990 wrote: Oh I'm fully on board with your breathless review of all the communications between the Trumpies and the Russians - I just hadn't realized we had moved away from a criminal conspiracy to affect US elections. Or are you saying that isn't what this is about? You sure seem hung up on me saying "to affect the elections", but that IS an element of a conspiracy. Otherwise, what were they conspiring to do? Learn about Chelsea's wedding details?
The 13 Russians were charged with "conspiracy to Defraud the United States" even though the effect on the election can't be proven.
It can be a criminal conspiracy without an effect on the election being established.
Rosenstein didn't qualify his definition the same way.
Knowledge about the hacks before the public, and communication with the perpetrators of the hack is evidence (not proof) of violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.CID1990 wrote:The emails most certainly ARE irrelevant if they aren't evidence of criminal activity
Or are we just looking for evidence of the Trumpies communicating with Russians, and knowing about people being hacked? Because none of that is evidence of a crime - it is really that elementary
93henfan wrote:Well, there it is. Case closed. I'm sending my bumper sticker and red hat back.
I'm thinking about getting a MAGA hatChizzang wrote:93henfan wrote:Well, there it is. Case closed. I'm sending my bumper sticker and red hat back.
Allegations from whom, Jelly?Skjellyfetti wrote:Lol.
Mueller and Rosenstein trying to spell it out for you guys as best they can.
I'm sure a Federal court filing and accompanying memo from the Acting Attorney General is "irrelevant."
I'm sure Mueller is not even investigating "collusion" and ruled it out almost a year ago.
Collusion isn't really a thing anyways...CID1990 wrote:Allegations from whom, Jelly?Skjellyfetti wrote:Lol.
Mueller and Rosenstein trying to spell it out for you guys as best they can.
I'm sure a Federal court filing and accompanying memo from the Acting Attorney General is "irrelevant."
I'm sure Mueller is not even investigating "collusion" and ruled it out almost a year ago.
Evidence? And I'll note that it says... colluded with Russians to interfere in the elections... that sounds a whole lot like what I've been saying - there are "allegations" without evidence - and Mueller has to make a show, because that's what's in the mandate
It seems to me that all they have on Manafort is related to the second bullet point.
If they actually had any evidence of the first one, I'm sure they'd be hard charging after it. But as it is, they ain't.
So basically, we are still at square one - with you frothing at the mouth over "allegations" of Trumpies colluding with Russians to throw the election with no supporting evidence. Maybe there's something in the dossier!
And that's why I continue to say that the collusion part of this investigation went into the sh!tcan in the first days of the entire thing
That's what Manafort's lawyers are arguing.Ibanez wrote:There was an article last week stating the charges against Manafort and Gates could be dismissed. The argument was the discovery of their crimes weren't necessarily in scope of Mueller's investigation - which I think is a reach but, lawyers can spin anything.
I guess that argument is now null, now that we have Trump's AG directing Mueller to investigate the allegations.
Glad to see you sticking to your guns on that.CID1990 wrote: Here's something you can mark down:
Mueller isn't looking at the Trump campaign for collusion. He's already ruled it out.
Not surprised at all, though. You really are a simple mindSkjellyfetti wrote:Did we know that, Cid? Did you know that? You've been arguing for almost a year that Mueller isn't even investigating collusion.
Why would he need authorization to investigate something he ruled out months beforehand?
Last Spring:Glad to see you sticking to your guns on that.CID1990 wrote: Here's something you can mark down:
Mueller isn't looking at the Trump campaign for collusion. He's already ruled it out.
And, Mueller is arguing collusion is part of the Manafort indictments - otherwise it wouldn't have been included as unredacted in the memo - and the court filing argues that Manafort's indictments are related to section (b)(1) of the original Rosensteign appointment (that's the section related to coordination with Россия).
https://www.thedailybeast.com/accused-r ... perative-3As 2016 campaign season neared, a Russian national who Special Counsel Robert Mueller now believes was working with the country’s intelligence services founded a consulting firm in Washington D.C.
Begemot Ventures International was incorporated in February 2015, occupying an office on Constitution Avenue. Like other firms in the nation’s capital it offered services catering to the politically inclined. But unlike those other shops, Begemot had executives tied not just to an alleged Russian influence campaign, but also a controversial data firm that would later help elect President Donald Trump.
The space that the firm continues to occupy also houses the offices of Sam Patten, a Republican lobbyist and foreign policy consultant who had previously worked to hone the firm Cambridge Analytica’s microtargeting operation during the 2014 midterm election cycle. They don’t just share a location either. Patten is listed as one of two Begemot executives in Washington D.C. incorporation records.
The other is Konstantin Kilimnik, who is currently front-and-center in the federal investigation into Russian government meddling in the 2016 presidential election. A recent court filing by Mueller alleged that “Person A”—believed to be Kilimnik—“has ties to Russian intelligence service and had such ties in 2016.”
Kilimnik has a years-long professional relationship with former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, whom Mueller has accused of illegally advancing the interests of foreign clients in the U.S. Kilimnik was a frequent intermediary between Manafort and Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska, to whom Manafort offered private briefings on the 2016 presidential race. Kilimnik has long been suspected of having worked with or for Russian intelligence services in the past. But Mueller’s allegations are so explosive because they allege such ties continued through the presidential election—ties that would, by virtue of Kilimnik’s association with Manafort, represent the Trump campaign’s closest known link to Kremlin operatives.
But those close to Kilimnik say the allegations are at a minimum overblown, and at most an outright fabrication. Patten too rejected allegations of Kilimnik’s Russian intelligence ties in an interview this week.
Patten acknowledged his collaboration with Kilimnik on Begemot, which he said operates entirely abroad despite its D.C. address. Patten also confirmed his work with Cambridge Analytica, saying he assisted the firm’s U.S. operations in 2014, and also worked with the company on “several overseas campaigns.” He declined to go into further detail, citing a non-disclosure agreement, but stressed that his work for Begemot and Cambridge Analytica were entirely separate.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/04/politics ... index.htmlSpecial counsel Robert Mueller's team has taken the unusual step of questioning Russian oligarchs who traveled into the US, stopping at least one and searching his electronic devices when his private jet landed at a New York area airport, according to multiple sources familiar with the inquiry.
A second Russian oligarch was stopped during a recent trip to the US, although it is not clear if he was searched, according to a person briefed on the matter.
Mueller's team has also made an informal voluntary document and interview request to a third Russian oligarch who has not traveled to the US recently.
The situations have one thing in common: Investigators are asking whether wealthy Russians illegally funneled cash donations directly or indirectly into Donald Trump's presidential campaign and inauguration.
Investigators' interest in Russian oligarchs has not been previously reported. It reveals that Mueller's team has intensified its focus into the potential flow of money from Russia into the US election as part of its wide-ranging investigation into whether the Trump team colluded with Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election.
The approach to Russian oligarchs in recent weeks may reflect that Mueller's team has already obtained records or documents that it has legal jurisdiction over and can get easily, one source said, and now it's a "wish list" to see what other information they can obtain from Russians entering the US or through their voluntary cooperation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/us/p ... cohen.htmlF.B.I. Raids Office of Trump’s Longtime Lawyer Michael Cohen
The F.B.I. on Monday raided the office of President Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, seizing records related to several topics including payments to a pornographic-film actress.
Federal prosecutors in Manhattan obtained the search warrant after receiving a referral from the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, according to Mr. Cohen’s lawyer, who called the search “completely inappropriate and unnecessary.” The search does not appear to be directly related to Mr. Mueller’s investigation, but likely resulted from information he had uncovered and gave to prosecutors in New York.
“Today the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York executed a series of search warrants and seized the privileged communications between my client, Michael Cohen, and his clients,” said Stephen Ryan, his lawyer. “I have been advised by federal prosecutors that the New York action is, in part, a referral by the Office of Special Counsel, Robert Mueller.”
Mr. Cohen plays a role in aspects of the special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. He also recently said he paid $130,000 to a pornographic-film actress, Stephanie Clifford, who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump. Ms. Clifford is known as Stormy Daniels.
Mr. Ryan said Mr. Cohen has cooperated with authorities and turned over thousands of documents to congressional investigators looking into Russian election meddling.
The payments to Ms. Clifford are only one of many topics being investigated, according to a person briefed on the search. The F.B.I. also seized emails, tax documents and business records, the person said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/08/us/f ... collectionMichigan Will No Longer Provide Free Bottled Water to Flint
Michigan will stop providing free bottled water to the city of Flint, Gov. Rick Snyder said on Friday.
City officials criticized the decision, in part because Flint is still recovering from a crisis that left residents with dangerous levels of lead in their tap water beginning in 2014.
But Michigan officials said lead levels in the water there have not exceeded federal limits for about two years, so the state was closing the four remaining distribution centers where residents have been picking up cases of free water since January 2016.
“We have worked diligently to restore the water quality and the scientific data now proves the water system is stable and the need for bottled water has ended,” Mr. Snyder, a Republican, said in a statement on Friday.
Flint’s mayor, Karen Weaver, said she was informed of the decision only moments before it was made public.
What do the Russians have to do with this?89Hen wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/08/us/f ... collectionMichigan Will No Longer Provide Free Bottled Water to Flint
Michigan will stop providing free bottled water to the city of Flint, Gov. Rick Snyder said on Friday.
City officials criticized the decision, in part because Flint is still recovering from a crisis that left residents with dangerous levels of lead in their tap water beginning in 2014.
But Michigan officials said lead levels in the water there have not exceeded federal limits for about two years, so the state was closing the four remaining distribution centers where residents have been picking up cases of free water since January 2016.
“We have worked diligently to restore the water quality and the scientific data now proves the water system is stable and the need for bottled water has ended,” Mr. Snyder, a Republican, said in a statement on Friday.
Flint’s mayor, Karen Weaver, said she was informed of the decision only moments before it was made public.
The same as what they have to do with the FBI looking for payment to strippers.BDKJMU wrote:What do the Russians have to do with this?
